 |
|
 |
|
|
Access State and Federal Case Law, plus U.S. Supreme Court cases — for free!
Click on any of the case links below to view the full text of that case — for free — through lexisONE®, a legal research and news service from LexisNexis®. Login is required — registration is free!
While viewing the full text of the case, select from upgrade options to Shepardize® or view the fully-featured case on lexis.com including Core Terms, Shepard's® Signals, Case Summaries, Print Options, and more. lexisONE offers access to comprehensive content and flexible services for faster, more efficient legal research. Review our flexible LexisNexis® subscriptions offered through daily, weekly or monthly research packages.
| Clark v. United States, No. 06-30932 Summary Calendar,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT, February 16, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The judgment of the district court after a veteran filed an untimely FTCA complaint was affirmed because he was not entitled to equitable tolling, and his assertions of equitable estoppel and the doctrine of laches were likewise entirely inapplicable to the case.
|
|||||
| Sarwal v. Principi, No. 06-20287 Summary Calendar,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT, February 16, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Employee's Title VII retaliation claim failed where she was unable to show that counseling letter for violating Department of Veterans Affairs' dress code was ever placed in her personnel file, and evidence showed that decision to deny monetary award to employee was made by someone other than supervisor who allegedly discriminated against employee.
|
|||||
| Trigo v. Tex. Dep't of Crim. Justice, No. 06-20131 Summary Calendar,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT, February 16, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A district court's 28 U.S.C.S. § 1915A dismissal of pro se inmate's § 1983 complaint was vacated, and the case was remanded since he asserted the denial of medical treatment for hepatitis C was based on policy, rather than on medical, reasons and that he was substantially harmed by the denial of treatment since that led to his developing cirrhosis.
|
|||||
| United States v. Castillo-Martinez, No. 06-40297 Summary Calendar,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT, February 16, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Voutsa v. Gonzales, No. 06-60016 Summary Calendar,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT, February 16, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: An alien's petition for review was denied since the appellate court lacked jurisdiction to review whether he actually challenged the IJ's untimeliness determination before the BIA or his challenge to the IJ's denial of his motion for a continuance, and the evidence did not compel an overturning of the IJ's adverse credibility determination.
|
|||||
| Smith v. BCE, Inc., No. 06-50088,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT, February 19, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: District court properly refused to remand a contractor's suit because of fraudulent joinder of a non-diverse subsidiary that had been released from a contract and could not be held liable for breaching the contract. Acquiring companies' alleged promises of financial support to the subsidiary's parent were not shown to have been fraudulent.
|
|||||
| United States v. Washington, No. 05-30163, No. 05-30285,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT, February 19, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendants' sentencing appeals were denied. They did not rebut presumption that their within-guidelines sentences, imposed for 21 U.S.C.S. §§ 841, 846, drug conspiracy offenses, were reasonable. Defendant two's Texas deferred adjudication was properly used as basis for imposing U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 4B1.1 career offender enhancement.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
